1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. In addition, “ through E, an insurance solicitor of the defendant,” written or added, No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 5 of the second instance shall be added to “ through E, which is an insurance solicitor of the defendant.”

In addition, the following shall be conducted between five, six and seven:

2) Even if the deceased’s liver cancer and urology diagnosis and treatment are important matters subject to the duty of disclosure, there is no intentional or gross negligence on the part of the insured and the deceased’s failure to notify it to the Defendant.

3) The Defendant did not fulfill the insurer’s duty of explanation on the effect of the breach of the duty of disclosure, and thus cannot claim termination of the contract due to the breach of the duty of disclosure. 4) Since, the Plaintiff, etc. did not give or interfere with giving the Plaintiff, etc. an opportunity to diagnose and notify the deceased’s liver cancer and urine disease and its treatment, the Defendant cannot terminate the insurance contract of this case in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract.

The 5th 7th 7th eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth g eth eth eth g eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth eth eth eth g) of the first instance court.

With respect to whether or not there was an intentional or gross negligence notification of important matters, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the testimony of witness E at the trial, namely, the plaintiff, at the time of entering into the insurance contract of this case, recognized that the plaintiff was aware of the fact of diagnosis and treatment of liver cancer and urology at the time of entering into the contract of this case